Originally posted by Da PittmanPertty colors.
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
Originally posted by Da PittmanPertty colors.
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Moreover, all species of life produce according to their kind (just like the Bible states).
No they don't. Many species have bred with other different species...Lions and Tiger...Horses and Donkeys...Horses and Zebras....Camels and Llamas...Even a Dolphin and a killer whale have bred.
Not to mention that there are hundreds of naturally occurring plant hybrid species.
Originally posted by jaden101
No they don't. Many species have bred with other different species...Lions and Tiger...Horses and Donkeys...Horses and Zebras....Camels and Llamas...Even a Dolphin and a killer whale have bred.Not to mention that there are hundreds of naturally occurring plant hybrid species.
Obviously none of those things are true.
They are. The quesiton is whether they do it naturally. Not all of those happen naturally.
and Jaden, the Jesus-defense to reality is that "kind" does not mean "species" it means that if its 4 legs and furry, it will make babies that are 4 legged and furry.
They are still waiting for two frogs to breed and make a dog.
*facepalm*
Originally posted by OrdoBut what about the time that they make a 4 legged and not furry baby, you know like a genetic default and fancy stuff like that 😉
They are. The quesiton is whether they do it naturally. Not all of those happen naturally.and Jaden, the Jesus-defense to reality is that "kind" does not mean "species" it means that if its 4 legs and furry, it will make babies that are 4 legged and furry.
They are still waiting for two frogs to breed and make a dog.
*facepalm*
Originally posted by Ordo
They are. The quesiton is whether they do it naturally. Not all of those happen naturally.and Jaden, the Jesus-defense to reality is that "kind" does not mean "species" it means that if its 4 legs and furry, it will make babies that are 4 legged and furry.
They are still waiting for two frogs to breed and make a dog.
*facepalm*
The only thing stopping them, in some cases, is georgraphy. Lions and tigers would happily mate. The only thing that stops them is the fact that lions are in Africa and Tigers are in India.
The plant hybrid species occur almost entirely in Nature
The only genetic barrier preventing 1 species from crossing with another is the number of chromosomes in each gamete. They have to match otherwise they can't pair up and so any resultant embryo would be almost immediately rejected and miscarried.
Originally posted by jaden101
The only genetic barrier preventing 1 species from crossing with another is the number of chromosomes in each gamete.
^^^ in most animals.
The definition for species in biology is rather poor and is a longstanding annoyance of mine. Its circular logic and in many ways, a rather archaic principle.
Originally posted by OrdoThe definition for species in biology is rather poor and is a longstanding annoyance of mine. Its circular logic and in many ways, a rather archaic principle.
True but it is also being constantly refined and species reclassified as more species are gene mapped and found to have more or less in common than with other members of their genus and family of organisms.
The entire question of what you refer to even has a scientific name and is called "the species problem"
It may never be answered completely as we continue to look into closer and closer detail. We've moved beyond physiological characteristics as a method to relate species into genetics and no doubt, at some point in the future, we will move into the atomic and sub-atomic make up of species so it will remain a working model for a long time.
no doubt, at some point in the future, we will move into the atomic and sub-atomic make up of species so it will remain a working model for a long time.
Why? At some point the group of particles we define as a living organism would lose significance; it doesn't matter if an atom of carbon is in a diamond or a lung. While we may look at interactions at the atomic level (as we already do) I can think of no relevant information (save the physical presence of a soul?) that would need subatomic physics to discuss life.
Originally posted by jaden101
True but it is also being constantly refined and species reclassified as more species are gene mapped and found to have more or less in common than with other members of their genus and family of organisms.The entire question of what you refer to even has a scientific name and is called "the species problem"
It may never be answered completely as we continue to look into closer and closer detail. We've moved beyond physiological characteristics as a method to relate species into genetics and no doubt, at some point in the future, we will move into the atomic and sub-atomic make up of species so it will remain a working model for a long time.
Red Nem has this right....wtf?
There is no movement that I'm aware of to classify species on a....what...WHAT? Subatomic level? What are we going to find...all Oxygens have 8 protons? Seriously. Do you know what you are talking about? Species is an ogranismal concept. Nothign below that...and sub atomic scales are out of the ballpark and at the bottom of the river.
Genetic mapping has only complicated the species problem because we've realized that we're all goddamn similar. We can create artificial breeding situations that would never happen in nature, blurring lines further. "Species" were only carried over into modern biology as a vestige of biologies past. The concept is imo practically irrlevant today.
Originally posted by Ordo
Red Nem has this right....wtf?There is no movement that I'm aware of to classify species on a....what...WHAT? Subatomic level? What are we going to find...all Oxygens have 8 protons? Seriously. Do you know what you are talking about? Species is an ogranismal concept. Nothign below that...and sub atomic scales are out of the ballpark and at the bottom of the river.
Genetic mapping has only complicated the species problem because we've realized that we're all goddamn similar. We can create artificial breeding situations that would never happen in nature, blurring lines further. "Species" were only carried over into modern biology as a vestige of biologies past. The concept is imo practically irrlevant today.
Actually it is happening now. We are constantly refining our techniques into smaller and smaller detail. Classification of micro-organisms, in some cases, requires further detail beyond that of genetic information to classify them. Prokaryotes are experiencing this problem now so it may well be the case that atomic make up of differing components of cells may be the only way to distinguish between some of them.
Infact atomic force microscopy (an advanced form of scanning electron microscopy) and nuclear magnetic resonance are already being utilised to distinguish differences between species of bacteria at the atomic level because genetic mapping isn't effective in some cases due to mutation.
In essence though, the classification of species can be ordered the same as a dvd collection....meaning by any number of criteria. Appearance, breeding compatibility, genetic similarity just as dvds can be done alphabetically, genre, director, language.
So while I agree that the constant arguing over how to classify species is counter-productive, it's also neccesary. For example, you wouldn't walk into a pet store and say "I want a bird". You'd be reasonably specific about what you wanted. Granted you might not say which of the 370 or so parrot species in 86 genera you wanted, but at least you wouldn't end up with an albatros flying around your house.
*faceplam*
First off, who is "we."
Two...you're wrong.
NMR can be used to distinguish between different proteins, etc, contained in cell walls. I wil also point out that these proteins are STILL contained within the organisms (in this case prokaryotic ones) genetic code, its just a problem of expression or as you pointed out, random neutral mutations. I have never argued this point....
There is a HUGE difference between protein level analysis and claiming a subatomic method for classification of species. Organisms do NOT modify atoms on the subatomic level (besides ionization etc) and the sure as hell do not modify subatomic particles. On top of that, I can think of no known instance where an organism can discriminate based on altered subatomic properties (say for example, selecting for deuterium over hydrogen). So basically I conclude you have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
Your point about classification of species is correct and is why it is an invalid concept. if you don't have a defined method for classification (homology, breeding, genetic similarity), the classification is irrelevant.
Your analogy is also poorly constructed. If I got to a pet store and ask for a dog....that statement is irrlevent...they're all are the same species. We choose on traits like breed, disposition, or appearance. The scientific need for a "species" concept (what I have been trying to discuss here)in such a scenario is minimal. On a personal, common level, traits and breeds suffice as a method for selection as opposed to an arbitrary biological system based on breeding potential or genetic similarity.
Originally posted by OrdoWhat if I ask for a cow? 😱 😛 Do I get a duck 😉
*faceplam*First off, who is "we."
Two...you're wrong.
NMR can be used to distinguish between different proteins, etc, contained in cell walls. I wil also point out that these proteins are STILL contained within the organisms (in this case prokaryotic ones) genetic code, its just a problem of expression or as you pointed out, random neutral mutations. I have never argued this point....
There is a HUGE difference between protein level analysis and claiming a subatomic method for classification of species. Organisms do NOT modify atoms on the subatomic level (besides ionization etc) and the sure as hell do not modify subatomic particles. On top of that, I can think of no known instance where an organism can discriminate based on altered subatomic properties (say for example, selecting for deuterium over hydrogen). So basically I conclude you have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
Your point about classification of species is correct and is why it is an invalid concept. if you don't have a defined method for classification (homology, breeding, genetic similarity), the classification is irrelevant.
Your analogy is also poorly constructed. If I got to a pet store and ask for a dog....that statement is irrlevent...they're all are the same species. We choose on traits like breed, disposition, or appearance. The scientific need for a "species" concept (what I have been trying to discuss here)in such a scenario is minimal. On a personal, common level, traits and breeds suffice as a method for selection as opposed to an arbitrary biological system based on breeding potential or genetic similarity.
Originally posted by Ordo
*faceplam*First off, who is "we."
Two...you're wrong.
NMR can be used to distinguish between different proteins, etc, contained in cell walls. I wil also point out that these proteins are STILL contained within the organisms (in this case prokaryotic ones) genetic code, its just a problem of expression or as you pointed out, random neutral mutations. I have never argued this point....
There is a HUGE difference between protein level analysis and claiming a subatomic method for classification of species. Organisms do NOT modify atoms on the subatomic level (besides ionization etc) and the sure as hell do not modify subatomic particles.
Your point about classification of species is correct and is why it is an invalid concept. if you don't have a defined method for classification (homology, breeding, genetic similarity), the classification is irrelevant.
Your analogy is also poorly constructed. If I got to a pet store and ask for a dog....that statement is irrlevent...they're all are the same species. We choose on traits like breed, disposition, or appearance. The scientific need for a "species" concept (what I have been trying to discuss here)in such a scenario is minimal. On a personal, common level, traits and breeds suffice as a method for selection as opposed to an arbitrary biological system based on breeding potential or genetic similarity.
NMR has been used to analyse bacteria with chlorophyl at the molecular level in order to ascertain how these molecules are arranged and how it differs from species to species
2:NMR's entire reason for being is to distinguish quantum mechanical magnetic properties of atomic nuclei.
Granted, there's no point in doing it for anything larger than bacteria because there are other, far easier ways to do it.
My analogy isn't poorly contructed because I never stated anything about asking for a dog...specifically for the reason you mentioned.
On top of that, I can think of no known instance where an organism can discriminate based on altered subatomic properties (say for example, selecting for deuterium over hydrogen). So basically I conclude you have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
Some research has already been carried out on that specific issue. In the case of the bacteria analysed there was no difference in those isotopes at least not in this piece of research but I believe that is still ongoing
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107627466/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
There has been work done on sulphur consuming bacteria that has shown differences in the utilisation of isotopes both between and even within a species depending on the availability of sulphur.
Do keep the childish insults to yourself though and stop with the strawman arguments as well as I've never claimed that organisms alter atomic structure.
Originally posted by jaden101
NMR has been used to analyse bacteria with chlorophyl at the molecular level in order to ascertain how these molecules are arranged and how it differs from species to species2:NMR's entire reason for being is to distinguish quantum mechanical magnetic properties of atomic nuclei.
Granted, there's no point in doing it for anything larger than bacteria because there are other, far easier ways to do it.
Duh. The point is, which you seem to keep forgetting. There is a difference between MOLECULAR structure (which I already said is a valid and current method of determining speciation) and SUBATOMIC structure (which is the cockamanie idea you are promoting....ineffectively).
Originally posted by jaden101
as well as I've never claimed that organisms alter atomic structure.
You are claiming you can classify species on subatomic differences...remember?
Originally posted by jaden101
at some point in the future, we will move into the atomic and sub-atomic make up of species
If there is no alteration and differences in subatomic structure, there is no way you can classify species on those criteria. What you said was factually wrong.
<><><>
Originally posted by jaden101
My analogy isn't poorly contructed because I never stated anything about asking for a dog...specifically for the reason you mentioned.
But you said:
Originally posted by jaden101
[B]how to classify species is...neccesary. For example, you wouldn't walk into a pet store and say "I want a bird". You'd be reasonably specific about what you wanted. Granted you might not say which...species...you wanted, but at least you wouldn't end up with an albatros flying around your house.[b]
The offer I gave wasn't a straw man (brilliant defense btw) its called a counterpoint...an example that disproves your statement. If you go buy a dog, the species is irrelevant. You choose based on breed, etc. Likewise, if you go buy a bird, you may WANT an albatross, otherwise you would have specified more clearly using other terms (aforementioned) to specify "parrot." Knowing the species in either example is 1. not required and 2. often entirely unhelpful as in my example of the dogs. Thus, it is not "necessary."
What IS required is common language and referencing, but this is required for any basic communication.
Duh. The point is, which you seem to keep forgetting. There is a difference between MOLECULAR structure (which I already said is a valid and current method of determining speciation) and SUBATOMIC structure (which is the cockamanie idea you are promoting....ineffectively).
And as I said, research has already been carried out on how different bacteria utilise different isotopes. If isotopic differences don't define "sub-atomic" then I don't know what does.
The fact that chemical shifts of hydrogen atoms of strep bacteria have been analysed show the level of detail that can be used to show bacterial differences. Whether these are different from 1 species to the next can only be hypothesised at the moment and that's exactly what i'm doing. It's very narrow minded of you to say simply that because it hasn't been looked at in great detail (although some research has been done) that is isn't or may not become a valid method of differentiating between bacterial species.
The offer I gave wasn't a straw man (brilliant defense btw) its called a counterpoint...an example that disproves your statement. If you go buy a dog, the species is irrelevant. You choose based on breed, etc. Likewise, if you go buy a bird, you may WANT an albatross, otherwise you would have specified more clearly using other terms (aforementioned) to specify "parrot." Knowing the species in either example is 1. not required and 2. often entirely unhelpful as in my example of the dogs. Thus, it is not "necessary."
How is referencing an entirely different thing to what I said a counterpoint as opposed to a strawman?
Clearly you'd have to be more specific that "a bird" in order to get what you wanted, hence the concept of classifying species isn't entirely useless...It's just highly flawed, as we both agree.
Originally posted by jaden101
And as I said, research has already been carried out on how different bacteria utilise different isotopes. If isotopic differences don't define "sub-atomic" then I don't know what does.
Even if bacteria actively selected for one isotope over another, this selection would have to be expressed in a different biochemical reaction or structure at the protein level. The subatomic differences are irrelevant.
Originally posted by jaden101
Whether these are different from 1 species to the next can only be hypothesised at the moment and that's exactly what i'm doing. It's very narrow minded of you to say simply that because it hasn't been looked at in great detail (although some research has been done) that is isn't or may not become a valid method of differentiating between bacterial species.
Forgive me for being skeptical...
Originally posted by jaden101
How is referencing an entirely different thing to what I said a counterpoint as opposed to a strawman?
Originally posted by jaden101Holy jump to conclusion batman.
Clearly you'd have to be more specific that "a bird" in order to get what you wanted, hence the concept of classifying species isn't entirely useless.
Saying you want to buy a "bird" is like saying you want to buy a "mammal," its a general Class.. Of course you are going to need to know something more specific than THAT. However, that doesn't mean "species" is the automatic and only answer. As my example demonstrate, species is not often specific enough. Knowing the species of dog you want is entirely useless...because they're all the same dam species. You chose on breeds and things like that. A scientific definition of species is not required.
There is no species difference between using one isotope and the other if they only use them base on availability. If I grow cells in a media with a modified form of glucose, I can't classify them as a separate species because they used a separate form of glucose.
Not if you're growing what you know to be 1 type of cell. If, however, you had several species of bacteria all competing for one main source of sulphur and you found that they utilised different isotopes then this is just another way of being able to seperate them.
All I see you doing is applying an already bad concept to a historically unclassifiable group of organisms using an illogical and untested criteria that if ever actually demonstrated (which it has yet to be), could only (and barely) distinguish between a few archaea (which are already a rare and exclusive group given their unique pathways of respiration and habitats). Forgive me for being skeptical...
Skepticism is healthy. Blatently insulting me is not.
How is referencing buying a bird when talking about the scientific validity of the species concept not a strawman?
Because I was quite clearly using an analogy (which you yourself recognised). However, you didn't attack that analogy. You attempted to say I used another, completely different analogy and then attacked that. That is the definition of a strawman argument.
Saying you want to buy a "bird" is like saying you want to buy a "mammal," its a general Class.. Of course you are going to need to know something more specific than THAT. However, that doesn't mean "species" is the automatic and only answer.
Did I say it was the only answer? No. I said it wasn't entirely useless.
So to quote you.
Holy jump to conclusion batman.
Or was that you using another strawman?